Ronda Rousey admitted to beating up her ex, so should we be outraged?

The beating wasn't necessary to stop the abuse. The beating was punitive (and the father is on the record saying so), but it wasn't pursued through the courts because of the extreme provocation that the abuse represented.

So if the justice system says that sometimes it's ok to assault someone (as they did in that case), that means there is a line. And where you place that line is somewhat subjective.

 

The different still lies there though:
In case of the father: He came into the room interrupting the current abuse of his son.

Rousey waited for a while for that person to come and then slap him.

Here, if you were to see someone getting raped and you interfere it's part of self-defense (for helping other other person).

But waiting for somebody, takes the "imminent" out of the equation, which would be the problem here.

Plus: Actually abusing a child is quite different then taking nudes.
Sure, the second is somewhat disgusting if the other didn't agree to it, but still there's a universe of difference between the two.


I agree with those here who said: Switch the roles and make the victim/ photo taker female and lots of people would look differently at it.

But I also agree that to some part it makes a difference which person is bigger - but only to a certain degree and not about the legal consequences.
If a tiny person hits a big person on the ear over and over again, the bigger person can get deaf, so the tiny person has to get punished (legally) - no matter how much bigger the other is and how (s)he should have been able to defend himself/ herself physically.

Some people just don't have the mindset to defend themselves and the last thing we need is a society who would punish not having that mindset.

 

The beating wasn’t an immediate punitive response to the naked pics. The initial slap was. Everything that came after was because he wouldn’t let her go without hearing him out. It was yet another case of an idiot desperate not to get dumped on the spot. There was no threat to Rousey’s safety or anything to justify such level of force. You make a travesty of the law when you go around and throw legal arguments willy-nilly to justify anything and everything. As for the authorities not pursuing the case, I'll remind you that the domestic violence charges against Ray Rice were dropped. What does that prove? Next time someone cuts me off, I'll get out of my car and go punch them. If someone protests, I guess I'll just say the punch was “punitive”. Done.

 

Rousey is using the "he tried to keep me in the apartment" defence that I brought up but actually I've swung more in line with you guys.
She over reacted into the realms of unnaceptable use of force.
Now...I think her reaction was of a different sort to ongoing, sytematic or controlling domestic violence but still in the same area. And the situation of the photos and the trying to restrict movement adds a different context that needs consideration.

 

I think she was perfectly entitled to wait and confront him. Waiting to have a go at someone doesn't take away your right to use physical force if the situation develops to that level. And I think, without being there of course, there's a grey area between "I'm leaving" and "No you're not".

 

I wasn't taking the "I leave" - "No, you're not" into the equation at the moment, to be honest.

I was more trying to differentiate between the immediate danger/ abuse the boy was in, that was happening at the exact moment and the difference compared to waiting for a while and then going to beat someone up.


Regarding the pictures: I could understand a man slapping a woman in that moment as well.
Slapping, not beating the other to a pulp (don't care for the gender in either case).

About the "You're not leaving part" - a tad difficult without being there and as you've already said, we only know her side of the story.
So, yeah, I actually do agree with you there, so I don't even need to write anything to that, I think ^^

 

Here is how Rhonda justified the legality of the beating.

http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2015/11/13/9727622/ufc-193-video-ronda-rousey-says-beating-up-ex-was-legal-not-domestic

No, it’s not. She would have to have been moved against her will for it to be kidnapping. She went there alone and willingly and waited for him for 45 minutes. Getting your exits blocked off might qualify as unlawful restraint but I’d surmise that you’d still have to demonstrate that was clearly the case to justify the use of force.

Definition of Unlawful Restraint:

http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/crime-penalties/federal/Unlawful-Restraint.htm

Rousey equated the situation with a past altercation where she’d beaten gotten in a fight with two guys in a movie theater.

Not so minor difference between the two situations is that the two guys in the movie theater had engaged her physically and cornered her. They were an imminent threat to her safety. The bf was a sorry idiot who wanted her to hear him out, not beat her up. Apples. Oranges.

 

if the person doesnt want to be there and is trying to leave, i dont see the difference regardless of intention, its just about the alleged victims perception of intention.

 

From a legal point-of-view, the differentiation is important, because the law by it's very nature has to be precise. (Even if two subtly different offences carried the same legal tariff, it is still important that the perpetrator gets charged with the right one.)

So while it might not make a jot of difference to how the victim feels about the situation they were in (or the perpetrator for that matter) it does make a difference in law.

 

Precisely.

 

so lets say its 2 people, even 2 males with a close relationship e.g. mr A and mr B, get into an argument

mr A slaps mr B for a discovery previous crime (e.g. taking personal data without mr. A's permission) which we can all agree is assault.
then mr A tries to leave but mr B wants to resolve the situation and prevents mr A from leaving.

mr A can reasonably argue at this point that mr B is preventing them from leaving/preventing escape and that they fear retaliation for the previous assault and would just like to leave - therefore they would be justified in stopping mr B from detaining them if they felt in danger.

Here in lies the issue with the "he said she said" case we are discussing.

 

It's assault but I do hang my head if we live in a world where someone can't give a total nugget a slap if he needs one.
If all he got for taking nudey photos was a slap he got lucky IMHO.

 

Then A committed one assault. Maybe B deserved a slap but punishment of crimes is not up to the victim (and rightly so), and the slap served no self-protection purpose nor was it intended or reasonably expected to halt or prevent a crime.

B also committed a crime in using the data. Depending on local law, B may have a defense against a false imprisonment (or equivalent) charge in that he was detaining the perpetrator of an assault until police arrival, but there is no self defense value and he may bear some civil liability for how he detains A and what occurs as a result.


Just because one person did a bad thing or even a worse thing does not mean that the second person "wins" legally. Each must answer for his own actions. If what you did was legally justifiable AND reasonable, you should be okay. But it is absolutely possible to be a victim and then become a perpetrator in a separate offense immediately after. Victim status does not absolve you of illegal or unreasonable behavior.

 

FWIW I agree with you Smitfire. Some people (for their own sake as much as anyone else's) need a good smack, but people are largely not able to reasonably moderate their response and legally speaking it's an untenable practice. There are always people who will go as far as they think they can get away with and frankly it's mostly those people who get into situations where retaliation looks appealing.

 

absolutely and i never imagined it would but it seems that in this case, both A and B are guilty of different crimes. one crime does not negate another.

i would just like everyone to acknowledge that both parties committed crimes. rouse and her boyfriend both committed crimes

 

Well of course it could also be argued that she was acting reasonably in using force in attempting to leave.
Without knowing the details her actions seem unreasonable for the amount of danger he was placing her in at the time and the amount of force one would expect to need to get past him.
But then I don't know exactly what he did to stop her from leaving or at what point he stopped trying to keep her there.
The fact that she's already said it was punitive throws a wrench into that defense though.

 

Absolutely. That was my very first reaction to the "beating was punitive" logic.

Precisely. Well put.

 

Doesn't matter. he is not about to admit he got his ass kicked by a woman. And he deserved to get his ass kicked in my humble opinion.